Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

LeeRatters wrote in post #19299929
Anyone got the recent Sigma 35mm f/2?

The build of the iSeries is simply amazing, however I haven’t tried that one specifically yet. I tried the 24f2 and it’s right up there with the GM and Samyang 24 f1.8. All very good 24’s and while the Sigma was a little smaller than I imagined, it is a hefty piece. The aperture wheel and overall build has got to be even better than voigtlander. I do gotta give a shout to the compact series by Sony, the build is fantastic and they do it without being heavy. They built the hood half plastic half steel probably to keep weight down while having favorable properties.

The iSeries and new compact are the most aesthetically pleasing lenses and performance is great. If there’s a critique with the iSeries is the sun star, wasn’t that great.

TRhoads wrote in post #19300171
Mine doesn't even want to know. I use money earned from Photography only for gear. That way it is just fueling the monster.

I have been fine with the V90 Sony Tough Cards. I don't need CFA cards yet.

As Jose mentioned, that is going to block ports.

The RRS one is good, I got the ultralight one, it does not extend the full width but it is tripod mounted most of the time when using a bracket. I sent the SmallRig one back. It was far inferior in quality and lightness.

Thank you Travis. I ordered one of the Sony Tough cards, an extra battery, and pre-ordered the full width RRS L bracket. I think the ultralight one would work well too. And I got that eyepiece that someone recommended. That should do it for now.

Choderboy wrote in post #19300086
Yeah. It's good. Got the 24 3.5 too.

Charlie wrote in post #19300174
The build of the iSeries is simply amazing, however I haven’t tried that one specifically yet. I tried the 24f2 and it’s right up there with the GM and Samyang 24 f1.8. All very good 24’s and while the Sigma was a little smaller than I imagined, it is a hefty piece. The aperture wheel and overall build has got to be even better than voigtlander. I do gotta give a shout to the compact series by Sony, the build is fantastic and they do it without being heavy. They built the hood half plastic half steel probably to keep weight down while having favorable properties.

The iSeries and new compact are the most aesthetically pleasing lenses and performance is great. If there’s a critique with the iSeries is the sun star, wasn’t that great.

Thanks both. I'm thinking a little outside the box here, and it's certainly just the start of some thinking. But I'm not being wowed by the 35GM images like I was the CV40 images. I don't know whether it's my mood, locations and conditions or what really. I used to edit my Voigtlander images without even trying yet right now I feel kinda lost with it all.

LeeRatters wrote in post #19300226
Thanks both. I'm thinking a little outside the box here, and it's certainly just the start of some thinking. But I'm not being wowed by the 35GM images like I was the CV40 images. I don't know whether it's my mood, locations and conditions or what really. I used to edit my Voigtlander images without even trying yet right now I feel kinda lost with it all.

Hi Lee, try Carlo’s Flickr for some great examples of the sigma 35, they are better that the Flickr group examples!

I wonder if your is issue is more perception/expectation​? Sounds like you still love the CV40 lens and images - then you spend a shed load of cash on a lens that gets stellar reviews - only to end up with the same (ish) images!?

The 35 GM pics are super clinical in my view. Mega sharp on point of focus and nice soft backgrounds. Opposite to you - I love looking at the images from the lens on the iPad - they pop massively and I can fairly easily tell which ones are from the lens. But all that said, the super clinical look might not be for you?

Last thought - that extra compression and depth of field will make a difference on the CV40 albeit maybe not a stand out difference. Can’t remember if you’ve got the 1.2 or 1.4 but obv the 1.2 would be even more of a difference.

Just some thoughts, hope it helps a bit!

Monkey moss wrote in post #19300233
Hi Lee, try Carlo’s Flickr for some great examples of the sigma 35, they are better that the Flickr group examples!

I wonder if your is issue is more perception/expectation​? Sounds like you still love the CV40 lens and images - then you spend a shed load of cash on a lens that gets stellar reviews - only to end up with the same (ish) images!?

The 35 GM pics are super clinical in my view. Mega sharp on point of focus and nice soft backgrounds. Opposite to you - I love looking at the images from the lens on the iPad - they pop massively and I can fairly easily tell which ones are from the lens. But all that said, the super clinical look might not be for you?

Last thought - that extra compression and depth of field will make a difference on the CV40 albeit maybe not a stand out difference. Can’t remember if you’ve got the 1.2 or 1.4 but obv the 1.2 would be even more of a difference.

Just some thoughts, hope it helps a bit!

Cheers mate. I do understand you there.

I much prefer my CV40 images to my 35GM images in my Flickr albums - I do have a lot more 40mm images though too in all fairness.

I have the 40mm f/1.2 in E mount.

The GM quality and sharpness is perfect even wide open. And star and Milky Way photography are amazing. I'm just not getting the look or the feeling I want from my images anymore.

I might have to do some very careful side by side comparisons and see what I can do in PP maybe because having AF is a certain bonus as is a big aperture especially on days out with family and walking the dog. So many more keepers even in the old A7 AF and face detect!

It's difficult!

From what you’re describing, it doesn’t sound like the sigma will give you anything extra in terms of final images. Think the benefits of that lens are more, cost and the physical aspects of the lens itself.

I also remember you suggesting a camera upgrade might be in your future at some point. Obviously the more modern cameras will play even better with the GM autofocus. It is ridiculously quick even on my 7iii.

Yes, sounds like a few side by sides and maybe a new preset might help. Ah, the endless world of improving colours/presets in Lightroom!!

LeeRatters wrote in post #19300236
It's difficult!

We make it difficult! Myself included. But it isn’t really.

Monkey moss wrote in post #19300240
From what you’re describing, it doesn’t sound like the sigma will give you anything extra in terms of final images. Think the benefits of that lens are more, cost and the physical aspects of the lens itself.

I also remember you suggesting a camera upgrade might be in your future at some point. Obviously the more modern cameras will play even better with the GM autofocus. It is ridiculously quick even on my 7iii.

Yes, sounds like a few side by sides and maybe a new preset might help. Ah, the endless world of improving colours/presets in Lightroom!!

I have had a good clear out of Lightroom presets already...... That is my next thing to look back into also. Keeping things simple. I just don't feel settled..... might just be my current mood though, I do have stuff going on right now.

I actuality prefer the 35GM for night skies than I do the 20G in all honesty. It is that good for it!

LeeRatters wrote in post #19300236
Cheers mate. I do understand you there.

I much prefer my CV40 images to my 35GM images in my Flickr albums - I do have a lot more 40mm images though too in all fairness.

I have the 40mm f/1.2 in E mount.

The GM quality and sharpness is perfect even wide open. And star and Milky Way photography are amazing. I'm just not getting the look or the feeling I want from my images anymore.

I might have to do some very careful side by side comparisons and see what I can do in PP maybe because having AF is a certain bonus as is a big aperture especially on days out with family and walking the dog. So many more keepers even in the old A7 AF and face detect!

It's difficult!

Lee I suspect what prefer in the CV40 is the softer contrast, glow and more vintage quality.

The 35i is more closely related to the CV40 than the GM is in that regard. The 35 GM is a more digital looking lens which has its perks, but I prefer the 35i/CV40 for PJ style photos.

I'm considering the 35i for environmental portraits. What do you guys think of that lens for that use?

mystik610 wrote in post #19300265
Lee I suspect what prefer in the CV40 is the softer contrast, glow and more vintage quality.

The 35i is more closely related to the CV40 than the GM is in that regard. The 35 GM is a more digital looking lens which has its perks, but I prefer the 35i/CV40 for PJ style photos.

That is the road my thinking is heading down I think. I've no issues with the actual 35GM with regard to size, weight, filter size etc

I think I'm going to try to nail the look I can get from it, do some proper comparison images with all my lenses and take things from there. One reason I didn't like the original FE55 was because it was too clean with no feeling in the images. Plus, that extra 5mm of course!

Thanks for the input

The Nikon Z9 looks good. Definitely beefy. All of this competition among camera manufacturers leads to innovation.

Just polished my Harley takes ages lol

Loving the ultra-portability of the A7c so far, but I'm definitely still getting used to the new body.

This blind man was serenading the grocery store parking lot with a passionate ballad two weekends ago, and he let me take his picture after I put some well-earned bread in his jar.